HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - C No. - 67801 of 2013 Court No. - 2 HON'BLE PRAKASH PADIA, J. HON'BLE VIVEK SARAN, J. 1. The matter is listed under heading "Oldest pending cases for priority hearing". 2. List revised. Nobody is present on behalf of petitioner though learned Standing Counsel is present on behalf of State-respondents. 3. The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition inter-alia with the following prayer:- "(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus, commanding the respondents to recalculate the payment of compensation for the land, acquired by the respondent-department by way of getting sale deed, by computing the amount of compensation/ consideration as per applicable circle rates, (Annexure No. 6 referred), and thereafter to pay the difference amount, along with the interest accrued thereupon, within a fixed frame of time, as may be stipulated by this Hon'ble Court. (ii) Issue a further writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus, commanding the respondents to provide the additional benefits as amenable under the policy decision of the State Govt. dated 02.06.2011 (Annexure No. 3 referred)." 4. Learned Standing Counsel placed reliance upon paragraph-8 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of Respondent Nos.1 to 6 which reads as follows:- "8. That in reply to that the contents of paragraph no. 6 of the writ petition it is submitted that the State Government has enforced the Land Acquisition Policy by letter dated 2.6.2011, in which it has been stated that Annuity will be payable only in the land acquisition matters. It has nowhere stated in the aforesaid Government Order the land which was taken on the basis of mutual settlement, the Annuity will be payable. It is Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Himanshu Pandey, O.P. Chaube Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Sri Charan Sewak .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 5 Others .....Respondent(s) stated that land of the petitioner has been acquired on the basis of mutual settlement, therefore, the Government Order dated 2.6.2011 (Annexure no.3 to the writ petition) is not applicable." 5. It is argued that once the land was taken on the basis of mutual consent, the prayers made by the petitioner in the present writ petition is not at all maintainable. 6. Since nobody is present on behalf of petitioner, the writ petition is dismissed in default. 7. In case, petitioner is aggrieved with this order, he is free to move the recall application within one month from today. (Vivek Saran,J.) (Prakash Padia,J.) October 13, 2025 Swati WRIC No. 67801 of 2013 2 Digitally signed by :- SWATI PATHAK High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- SWATI PATHAK High Court of Judicature at Allahabad